The group Aespa "Next Level" company version of choreography video has been embroiled in a sex merchandising controversy.
On June 19, Aespa posted a version of the "Next Level" company choreography video on the official YouTube channel. In the video, the members choreographed the choreography with a suit and a employee certificate for the concept of the worker.
The controversy erupted from a change in suits, and some pointed out that the clothes with the shirt folded up and digested in crop form and High Heels were not suitable for a worker's costume. Despite the concept of 'company version', it was criticized that exposing the waist line and wearing High Heels were sex commercialization.
On the other hand, there is an opinion that gender commercialization raises unreasonable problems. It is necessary to see it as part of the Performance because Aespa is not actually going to work, but it is just a combination of the company concept in costume.
This controversy over sex commercialization was not first raised in the Aespa choreography video. The Mnet audition program 'Produce 48', which was hot in the summer of 2018, received a harsh criticism for uniform uniforms. It was because short and attached uniforms were inappropriate for digesting the stage and could denigrate minors as sexual objects.
TV Chosun 'Mistrot 2', which was the best topic in the first half of this year, also opened the opening ceremony with the participants who greeted in a tight H-line dress.
Some responded that it was burdensome to wink and pose with emphasis on body as if to attract viewers. Especially, as young participants participated, as well as the trot program where all generations sat around, the bitter sound was more intense.
The reason why the controversy over sex commercialization continues is because the boundaries between sex commercialization and Performance are ambiguous.
Sex commercialization means the act of buying and selling sex itself as a product, or using sex as a means of selling other products.
Sex is a personality value, so if it is commercialized, it can undermine the value and meaning of sex, and sex commercialization is generally regarded as a negative phenomenon in that it encourages appearance groundism.
On the other hand, it is also tense that sex commercialization can not be seen as absolutely bad. In light of the capitalist logic of maximizing profits, it is not only a natural act, but also a right to self-determination and freedom of expression of sex.
Aespa choreography video, uniform, and one-piece Performance can also be recognized as a kind of Performance or a sex commercialization problem. Excessive sex commercialization may feel uncomfortable, but if the parties did not complain about the choice of clothes, they also need to respect it as freedom.
There is no clear standard for how much exposure, what Performance to see as sex commercialization, and the level of sensitivity that each viewer feels uncomfortable is also different. This is why the controversy over sex commercialization is constantly raised, but there is no sharp alternative, and the loudness is repeated.
After all, what matters is the flexible attitude of listening to the public response. There is no correct answer to good Performance, but it is the artist and the producer's task to show the way it meets the public eye level according to the changing times. The public also needs to develop a mature attitude of discussing better stages rather than unconditionally disparaging Performance or completely ignoring the possibility of problems.